Thanks for taking care of the speciesbox on Waitaha penguin. I saw your question in the edit history. Author citation (zoology) - in the Ranks matters section - says, “The parentheses around the author citation indicate that this was not the original taxonomic placement.” So it would seem that you ought to include parentheses around the authority for Megadyptes antipodes waitaha. Important note: All of the relevant examples in Author citation (zoology) involve moving a species to a different genus. I’m just presuming that the rule would be similar for lower-level taxonomic changes. Columbianmammoth (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Following your edit here to Franklin Bulls altering the subsection name of "The Start of something new coming straight out of Pukekohe" to "Establishment", it has since been changed back to a non-neutral tone [1]. Are you able to contribute again or revert the change? Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Kīngitanga election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hello Nurg, I have seen you removed my most recent edit on Māori King movement. However, I see nothing wrong with removing the template that appears outside the citation and the page number is already included in the ref. Rynoip (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the message. The page number for this ref is 112, but the page number in the citation is 126. But this referencing is not done well, so I will make it better. I should have time to do this very soon. Nurg (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nurg, thanks for the idea behind Special:Diff/1286345759, but if you revert, please make sure to have (and to provide) a reason beyond the edit warring itself, as edit warring is obviously not an excuse for joining and you can't enforce a stable revision. Instead, if the only reason for taking action is that people are edit warring, please discuss, invite to discussions or report at WP:ANEW instead. Thanks and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:ToBeFree. Thanks for the comment. It seemed to me a common-sense idea to revert to a pre-war stable revision while the discussion was going on, but if I have gone against consensus practice (unknowingly), feel free to revert my revert. Any pointers to guidelines about not enforcing a stable revision are welcome for my ongoing education. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting you would be equally bad unless you chose a really unsuitable revision. The perceived common sense idea is broken by the lack of protection. While WP:PREFER exists, it's for administrators; there is no policy-based reason for restoring a stable revision as a non-administrator, and joining edit wars is usually not a good idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said "there is no policy-based reason for restoring a stable revision as a non-administrator", but is there a policy-based reason for not restoring a stable revision? Regarding joining the edit war, I did not think of myself as doing that, but maybe there is a policy or guideline that would characterise my revert in that way?? At Wikipedia:Edit warring § Handling of edit-warring behaviors it says Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of [...] limiting themselves to a single revert. I made a single edit (a revert). I have since invited you to revert my edit if appropriate. So I still don't think of myself as "joining" an edit war, although, again, maybe there is a guideline that would characterise it that way?? Regarding page protection, I didn't think the dispute had reached the point where that was necessary, especially as a Talk page discussion had been opened by one of the disputants, and even though that disputant subsequently made another edit-warring reinstatement of their proposed change. The preceding sentence to the one you quote in green says if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without prompting), which would then demonstrate consensus [...]. I saw myself more in the role of another editor rather than as a third edit warrior, although I did not indicate agreement with the pre-war revision (which was up to the Talk page discussion to find consensus on), just that it seemed common sense to restore the status quo ante until the discussion concluded. Nurg (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You caught my attention with a revision you made a couple days ago to the seealso/references/furtherreading/notes sections of the article Separation of powers.
It seems to me there is a better way to organize these sections than we usually do at present, which is why I had BOLD-ly reorganized those appendices in the course of my overhaul of the references/citations. I wanted to discuss with you whether there are weighty reasons or consensuses precluding my new way of doing things, and you were consciously reverting my BOLD experiment; or if you were just trying to align the appendices with the dominant structure, and were not aware that the atypical ordering of the sections was intentional.
Essentially, I'm suggesting this:
When a system of shortened citations is used, these should be in a section called "notes" at the very end of the page.
This is because I don't think anyone has an interest in reading through all of the individual citations to specific pages in one go; since Wikipedia is NOTPAPER, everyone (to my knowledge) just hovers the cursor over (or taps) the superscript number in square brackets that automatically pops up the relevant footnote. Thus, putting the list of them as far down on the page as possible seems sensible.
Conversely, there does seem ample reason for a reader to familiarize themselves en masse with all of the references cited to in an article. In turn, then, I'd like to promote the references/"workscited" section to just after the "See also" section. "Further reading" and "External links" would directly follow, forming one long reading list for those wishing to dive into the topic more deeply.
(I don't think my idea conflicts with the MOS as it stands, on my reading of the topical passage. I am only passingly familiar with all the stylistic consensuses, though, since my main reason for being here is to contribute substantively – I could be missing something, and would be glad to have it pointed out to me.)
What do you think? On the balance of reasons, should we definitely stick with our usual ordering?
Hi LegFun. The relevant guide is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, which has the status of 'guideline', meaning it is supported by consensus and editors should generally follow it, though occasional exceptions may apply. I don't see any reason for the Separation of powers article to be an exception. In fact, with 34 citation footnotes, which is much less than some articles, it seems quite unexceptional. It is not clear to me from your comments though whether you think your suggestion should apply to just 'Separation of powers' or to all articles that use shortened citations. Cheers. Nurg (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it seems I missed the pertinent information contained in explanatory footnotes [d] and [e]. The one explains the rationale for placing Notes/References before Further reading (ordering from on-wiki to off-wiki), the other that for putting External links dead last. Taken together, the implication seems to be that present consensus extends to an ordering of the appendices that conflicts with the order I wanted to try out.
And, no, I agree that Separation of powers doesn't require an exception to be made.
Huge thanks for your help with the GA review of Pōwhiri. Your contributions were brilliant and certainly crucial for getting it over the line. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe!
Kia ora Nurg, I'm reaching out from Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand. We appreciated your insights around recentism and editing biases over on the NZ noticeboard and would love to share it with our community, so we wanted to ask if a) you would be OK with your comments being shared via our platforms (with attribution), and b) if you might be interested in expanding your comments at all? Please feel free to email me at [email protected] — thank you!
Hi Sophie. It is OK for you to share my comments. I don't have anything particular to add to my comments at the moment, but you might be able to draw me out. Nurg (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hillmenco. Sorry, I forgot about this for a few days. Nothing much to comment on, but I suppose the final quotation should be attributed (not that I am trying to promote my name). Nurg (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 December 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pōwhiri, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Māori culture a woman can end a speech during a pōwhiri by walking in front of the speaker? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pōwhiri. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pōwhiri), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.
Hi there. "Unofficial" is probably not a good way of describing the stamps of genuine private postal providers (such as DX Mail, Pete's Post, NZ Mail, etc.) However the topic tends to get muddied up with fictitious entities such as Wine Post printing and promoting their own "stamps" without a postal service or access agreement to back them up. I do remember spending a bit of time "back in the day" weeding fantasies and fabrications out of articles about private postal providers and have a depressing suspicion that they've sneaked back in while I've been too busy in "real life" to spend much time on Wikipedia. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nurg. At the moment I'm working on the Austrovenus stutchburyi article (aiming to submit it for FA). For the "Conservation and threats" section I introduce the concepts of rāhui, māitaitai and taiapure in the second paragraph of the "Restoration" subsection. I saw on your user page that you have a degree in Māori (presumably this encompasses Māori concepts?) , so I was wondering if you'd be interested in double checking that I've understood and explained these concepts correctly? No worries if you're too busy though. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
I've never had the impression that you're a person who cares much for barnstars, but I just wanted to give you this to show you how much I appreciate your contributions to talk page discussions. Although we have almost never directly communicated, I have been constantly seeing you throughout the past 3-4 years and I've always been struck by the way you approach talk pages. What has impressed me is how much thought you put into your comments, how your messages are always kind and how they always add something new to the conversation. I have never seen you make a rude comment before, I have never seen you say anything pointless or something that didn't need to be said, and I have never seen you in a silly conflict. I'm sure you have done these things many times before, but I personally have not seen you do any of them, and there are only a few other people that I know of who have maintained such high talk page standards. When it comes to the use of talk pages, I consider you to be my biggest Wikipedia role model (I hope this is not an offensive thing to say given how little we've interacted). I don't know how much of me you've seen, but I have really struggled with making messes of talk pages over the past few years and your comments are the ones I look up to the most in an effort to improve my own use of talk pages.
Thank you very much. It makes me very happy to know I have succeeded in some of my aims. I will reply a little more on your Talk page. Nurg (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
seconded, came here from a comment you made on the administrator incident noticeboard. I didn't see it in time but learned a lot from your style of expression Drew Stanley (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
